A new report by an influential policy group in America says the US Government needs an urgent public relations overhaul to improve its image in the international community. The report by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations says the Bush administration has significantly under-performed in its efforts to capture the hearts and minds of non-Americans. In trying to sell its foreign policy and values, the administration needs to do much more, and it needs to do it fast. According to the report, negative attitudes about US policy are particularly pervasive in the Muslim world, America's image problem is truly global.Bush's lies are designed to conceal a hidden agenda that lurks behind America's failing image abroad. The rest of the world knows that Bush's "War on Terror" is both a lie and a red herring if the American people do not. Another transparent PR campaign is the last thing the US needs.
So why not go down, meet with the doctors, with the guards, with the interrogators, and still put in the report but we would have liked to have spoken with the detainees. But frankly what would we have learned from that? If the detainee said we're being tortured, you'd say well there's OK there's the Al Qaeda manual, chapter 18 that the British police discovered in Manchester saying if you're detained claim you were tortured. Or if they're not told they're tortured then they'll say well you detainees were specially chosen.Thus is summed up the danger any "war on terrorism" poses to Due Process of Law. Bush officials can be relied upon to come up with a circulus en probando rationalization designed to legitimatize any outrage. At a time when some 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in those "areas covered by the US military 'surge'", Bush efforts to define those thrown into any US facility as "terrorist" is absurd. An arbitrary exception to Due Process is thus made for people "accused" of being terrorist, though they are never formally "accused" or charged. They just "are". Bush says so. Terrorism is whatever Bush says it is. Terrorism should be dealt with by intelligence personnel and law enforcement. "Terrorism" as consisting of specific, prosecutable crimes should be treated like any other intelligence and law enforcement problem. It is understandable that Bush would not want to do so. To so treat those crimes robs him of the power he seeks. It deprives him of the various pre-texts he needs to wage war on the world. Free of "terrorist" distractions, the utterly failed and corrupt nature of Bush's miserable regime would become apparent even to his corrupt GOP base. Thousands have been robbed of "personhood" because Bush assumes arbitrary powers never intended by the founders. Not surprisingly, Bush opposes Due Process of Law because he is in violation of it. Of course he would oppose the Geneva Convention and US Codes. US Codes, in particular, prescribe the death penalty for crimes attributable to Bush personally. Due Process of Law was intended to prevent what Bush is doing in fact. Bush's failed "surge" leaves in its wake a giant sucking sound --Bush's BS rhetoric played backward. The surge failed because it was the wrong war against the wrong target for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. Nothing about it was right but then Bush has never been right about anything at any time for any reason. For political purposes, Bush proposed to wage a war on terror against everyone but terrorists. Certainly, Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and most certainly never supported al Qaeda. If Iraq is now an al Qaeda "base", it is Bush's fault --not Saddam's. Bush failed because, by definition, no government propped up by US forces is legitimate. Having failed the fundamentals, Bush had hoped to paper over them with "fresh meat". He would not hesitate to throw US troops into the grinder. Tragically, he may never be held to account for the lives he so eagerly and gleefully sacrificed. The lies he has told about the nature of their sacrifice and the nature of his criminal fraud upon the American people is enough in itself to try him for high treason. If all the war criminals in his administration should ever hang for the capital crimes for which they are culpable, it will be ironic that it will be for the foreign troops killed in his wars of aggression. It will be a tragic injustice if Bush himself should escape charges for the lives of US troops that Bush so eagerly sacrificed.
--Colleen Graffy, US State Department, Guantanamo Bay, Sunday 12 March 2006 Andrew Marr interview with Colleen Graffy,- Advertisement -
Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy US military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.Both parties miss the point. As any idiot will tell you: you cannot wage a war on terrorism upon everyone but terrorists and expect to win. What was originally called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" [OIL] failed to achieve the publicized objectives because those were not the real objectives. Bush either lied or he is stupid or both! Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and, until the US arrived in Baghdad, there were no "terrorists" in that nation. Even now, the point is debatable. Initially, the US deliberately mislabeled a "resistance" to US occupation "terrorist" or "insurgent".
--Philip H. Gordon, Can the War on Terror Be Won? Foreign Affairs- Advertisement -
In the long run, the United States and its allies are far more likely to win this war than al Qaeda, not only because liberty is ultimately more appealing than a narrow and extremist interpretation of Islam but also because they learn from mistakes, while al Qaeda's increasingly desperate efforts will alienate even its potential supporters. From the Zealots in the first century AD to the Red Brigades, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil Tigers, and others in more recent times, terrorism has been a tactic used by the weak in an effort to produce political change. Like violent crime, deadly disease, and other scourges, it can be reduced and contained. But it cannot be totally eliminated.What Gordon hasn't told you is that "wars" on tyranny or terrorism are not won by becoming tyrants or terrorists. By arrogating unto himself powers never bestowed upon the Presidency by our founders, Bush has become both a tyrant and a terrorist himself. Thus, the war against Iraq is lost and the fraudulent nature of the "war on terrorism" is exposed.
--Philip H. Gordon, Can the War on Terror Be Won? Foreign Affairs